I have an example of the M version of the1.7 lens, and in my searches, I find the performance exceptional! Test reports give it a resolution of 98 line pairs per mm at f/8.0, and 87 line pairs at plus or minus 2 stops either side of f/8.0! That's sharp! -- I'm keeping mine! If they made it today, and advertised it for one of the top dog performers, you'd have to pay $500 and up for it. One more example of the incredible values you can find on stellar Penatax lenses today!
keith whaley Greg Lovern wrote: > > Hi Boris, > > > It is optically identical to A 50/2.0 > > I'm not sure if this means you'd also be interested in hearing about the A > 50/2.0, but just in case it does, here's one non-pro's experience: > > I started with the A 50/2.0, then went to an A 50/1.7. I did a roll of > (informal, non-chart) test shots at all aperatures with the A 50/2.0, but > with the birth of our child I haven't had time to do the same with the A > 50/1.7. However, I've taken hundreds of pictures with it. > > The main difference between the two in my experience is that the 2.0 is > quite soft wide open, while the 1.7 is quite sharp wide open. Since I > haven't done my test shots with the 1.7, it's hard for me to compare > sharpness between wide open and medium aperatures. But the 1.7 does seem > sharper even at f8 & f11 than the 2.0, where the 2.0 is at it's best. > > The 2.0 is so soft at 2.0 that on my first roll, before doing the test > shots, I thought I had been careless in focusing. Then, my tests showed > that it starts very soft at 2.0, then sharpens up gradually to 8.0. After > doing those tests, and before upgrading to the 1.7, I tried to avoid > shooting at f2.0 and f2.8 (unless I wanted a soft look, which I usually > didn't), and really tried to get to f5.6 when I could. > > I don't have the knowledge to compare other optical aspects of the lenses, > except to say that I'm 100% pleased with the 1.7, and that the sharpness > issue is the only thing I dislike about the 2.0. > > The comments on Stan's site make the M 2.0 sound great. But my experience > is that the A 2.0 is inferior to the A 1.7, and simply unusable if you > want relatively sharp shots wide open. I'm very pleased with the A 1.7, > though, at all aperatures. > > Hope this helps, > > Greg [. . .]
